- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 12:14:50 -0500
- To: xml-uri@w3.org
At 12:31 2000 06 06 -0400, keshlam@us.ibm.com wrote: >>Whoa, you are talking about schema-validity with assumptions that >>namespace names point to schemas, etc. > >Nope. I'm talking about namespace-aware validation, which schemas will >support, combined with the Absolutize proposal for namespaces. > >Consider what happens if the shema's declaration for the namespace, and/or >the instance's declaration for the namespace, is expressed as the same >relative reference. ... >This could cause a document which was validating to no longer >validate. You can also reverse the scenario to create documents which >validate when XBase is available but fail when it isn't. All that's fine, I'm just saying that the original issue was about well-formedness, not validation, much less validation via a schema. There is no question that a situation in which one reads a different schema from that expected will cause different results when using that schema to validate, I'm just questioning whether XML Base itself has the "huge problem" that it screws up well-formedness. paul
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2000 13:14:52 UTC